MI-85: Multi package managers & improvements

[kai-nguyen-aligent]

This PR is a bit big because I also fix a couple of issues while using this pipeline:

1. Support all 3 main package managers (npm, pnpm & yarn).
2. Update documents as we now not only support Nx monorepo in this pipeline. We also support the [legacy polyrepo] (feat DO-1593: add support for non-mono repo #8)
3. We used to rely on ts-node instead of trans-pile to Javascript.

• I have removed ts-node from dependencies.
• Added tsx to devDependencies for development.
• Transpile the code to Javascript before building docker image.
• We now run the pipeline directly using node. In the future, we also can pack this into a npm package and run it directly from Bitbucket pipeline via npx.

4. Remove redundant pipe.yml. @tvhees I have no idea why this file exist in this repository. Do you recall why it's here & should it be removed or not?
5. We used to only see plain white text even though Bitbucket pipeline support colours. Therefore, I added colour (and a small icon) into our pipe main console.log() & preserve colours from sub-commands. The result now look like so:
   

@TheOrangePuff Will need your help on reviewing parts related to docker image building & workflow.

[ryanrixxh]

LGTM but need to run this by a DevOps

[TheOrangePuff]

Couple comments

[kai-nguyen-aligent]

@TheOrangePuff All issue has been addressed. I also update Dockerfile to match with recommended approach from https://github.com/nodejs/docker-node/blob/main/docs/BestPractices.md#smaller-images-without-npmyarn.

[kai-nguyen-aligent]

@TheOrangePuff Is there anything that block this PR to be merged? I understand that we do not have the final decision on which package manager we should use yet but this PR supports all 3 main one. Considering the following benefit, I think there is no harm of merging this even if we are going to stick with npm in the future:

• Support colour in CI
• More robust CI as ts-node has been removed. We run the code directly.

[TheOrangePuff]

LGTM